To wonder why no one seems bothered by links to labour MPs + paedophile rights organisation?

[starlady]

The Mail has published new claims about Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt supporting The paedophile information exchange. Thought it was a rehash of an old story, but I've looked at the evidence published, and it looks as if harriet etc do have some explaining to do. I won't link to the Mail, but the Guardian gives a more nuanced point of view here

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/20/dailymail-harrietharman
What I'm finding puzzling is twitter is not bothered! And I haven't seen anything on mumsnet. Isn't anyone bothered? No wonder jimmy Saville et al got away with their actions. I am a labour voter myself, so I'm not trying to be partisan and stir up trouble, but the silence on this disturbs me.

Mantorna I don't believe Harman, Dromey and Hewitt were paedophiles. I think they were careerists. And that to me makes it worse. And yes Mimsy, I get the context of how this might have happened, I was born in the 70s, so slightly different experience to you, but yes, I accept this. But we do need to hear from the three of the. If we're making C-list TV stars accountable, surely elected MPs should be too. Have an enquiry -- pref not of the Hutton variety

manifest i read Eileen Fairweathers (journalist) and Liz davies (social worker) accounts of what went on in Islington when all this with Savile first broke

They might well have been careerists- they are politicians after all. But many of us at the time thought that allowing freedom of speech to anyone, however loathesome, was the right thing to do. Many people still do..........

I think that people should be held accountable for views they have held. However, the comments that having shared in this movement being WORSE than paedophilia itself is shocking. Yes these three perhaps should explain their choices but their behaviour was not direct abuse of children. They did not cover up or conspire to hide information. To make this about party politics completely misses the point. Yes liberalism might have brought things into the open but right wing mps have been implicated in the abuse too. Saville himself moved in their circles. As long as the public can be divided into political camps suspicious of each other, they won't unite and ask the leaders of all parties why they have covered for so many of the elite regardless of their political leanings. These attacks on individuals and the bbc are a smoke screen in my opinion.

Great post Lurcio. Your point about the distinction between public and private sphere is a good one.

Shouldhave didn't mean that paedophiliic acts aren't worse, but what I mean is, if people have those urges you can understand why they would want to justify them. By the same token, there are some pornographers who don't have sexual urges towards children, but happily sell images of children being abused.

Just want to clarify that.

It's sick, and there is no justification for it, whatsoever.

They should be locked up.

Like mimsy and Martorana, I remember the 70s, and remember that the prevailing atmosphere was very different then. The idea that children should be able to express their sexuality was considered reasonable in some progressive circles. The huge wave of public feeling against paedophilia didn't really get going until the 1980s.

No not progressive circles....perverted circles.

by the way, thanks for the link ManifestoMT. And reading this piece from almost 20 years ago from Eileen Fairweather gives a greater understanding of the atmosphere about the Hodge/ Islington affair.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/witness-stalinist-reluctance-to-study-the-facts-1621767.html

Frankly, if she got off scott free, these 3 have got zero to worry about

There prevailing thoughts in the 70's were not that Paedophilia was progressive as someone who grew up in the 60's and 70's. I found a link for a Mary whitehouse article campaigning about UNICEF and research money was going to child abuse. I can't find it now

I also think it's a type of grooming when people put forward that it was different in the past. It was not. It never was and never been ok to abuse children.

The only difference is that a kiddy fiddler would have been beaten up and the police would have turned a blind eye or probably given him a kicking on the way to the cells.

They were csfkate's links not mine.

They are really eye opening

When the children's harrowing stories first appeared, Margaret Hodge, then leader of Islington council, sought refuge in killing the messenger. The London Evening Standard's month-long investigation was clearly sourced by scores of staff, children, police officers and documents. But because the newspaper is considered in right-on N1 to be "right wing", Hodge airily dismissed it as "politically motivated ... a sensationalist bit of gutter journalism". A month later she took up a top City job.

ManifestoMT It was not. It never was and never been ok to abuse children.

I agree with this. I grew up in the 70s in a political lefty environment and paedophilia was not okay at all. This may have been fashionable chat among a small but influential section of liberal lefties and men who had been at boarding schools but it was definitely not broadly acceptable.

The sex abuse scandals of the 80s were scandals because no-one could believe the scale of what had been going on, not because there was a sudden change of attitude towards abusing children. I think people may have known of one or two incidents but thought it was their private problem, not that it was so widespread.

The bbc won't mention it because of legal issues they reckon hmmm

even the lefty guardian is querying what's going on. Ive seen transcripts where harriet harman is campaigning for the law on incest to be repealed and she was the legal bod at the time. Very unsavoury. You can bet your bottom dollar if it was anyone except labour, bbc would be all over it like a rash

I ignored it because it was in the Daily Heil. They've spent years exaggerating, misrepresenting, and downright lying that I can't trust anything they say. If it comes from a proper news source, I'll listen.

FloraFox, you're overlooking that fact that entering local politics was a very successful way of getting free access to the children in local council children's homes. Remember the very very fat Lib Dem? It was a free-for-all.

TiggyCBE I heard about some of this stuff years ago, and NOT in the DM.

At the very least, it deserves proper investigation.

While I have some insight into how people without an independent moral compass can lull themselves into such tacitly supporting grave evil and depravity, I have not been convinced with a Jedi-like handwave that it was all sort of alright and intoxicating and stuff.

falaaa yes that may be so but I think unless you were involved in the abuse, I don't think it was acceptable. Party politics then were very tribal and I'm not surprised that there would be what the Independent called a "Stalinist" response to what might be perceived as an attack on the left or the labour party. How much has changed? Look at the Rennard situation, that's still very much a Party first attitude.

Btw, I don't think this can be brushed off because it's in the Daily Mail. They may hate the Labour party but that doesn't make everything they print about it to be untrue. These allegations have been made for years now and Harriet Harman and the rest have not denied them nor explained them - which I think they should. If people brush this off because it came from the Mail, that's repeating the behaviour in Islington when the allegations were dismissed as a right wind plot.

Another one here who can remember it happening at the time. Pamish and Meditrina's posts are really interesting. It's important to know that in the 70s (for lefties) and the 80s (for Tories) there were lots of skirmishes over libertarianism. The NCCL sat firmly in the libertarian left camp and often drew approbation for it - I seem to remember some brouhaha about them supporting a National Front member against dismissal, or something - just as Liberty is now getting into hot water over legalisation of prostitution.

We were all really feeling our way, emerging from a much more socially repressive society, blinking in the daylight as we debated the limits around personal freedom and responsibility. That does not mean that I think the NCCL stance was ok. I didn't think so at the time, and I was far from being alone - PIE was considered a disgusting organisation, then and now.

I was a young lesbian feminist in the early 80s and I do remember paedophilia as one of the issues that divided (some) gay men and lesbians at the time. I wasn't aware of any lesbian activist who thought paedophilia was ok - we were outraged that anyone would try to excuse sexual abuse. But I did know some gay men who were genuinely torn about the issue, who wondered if paedophilia was another orientation that should not be persecuted - provided the children consented. Some of those gay men are still my friends, and I know they would never ever hold that position now. But there was a particular context for those debates, one that needs to be understood to make sense of this.

I think Harman et al will have changed their position too. I think they will feel ashamed of what happened back then. I think they should say so.

But I must just add, there are some really out of order posts on here that need to be picked up.

VulvaBeaker suggests that "stonewall and many of the gay marriage types" were involved. Stonewall didn't even exist then. And what the heck are 'gay marriage types'? Gay people, perhaps?

As for:

"Disclaimer: I don't think that homosexual men are any more likely to be child abusers then heterosexual men. Not at all.

But, having learnt that PIE was an offshoot of the gay liberation front, I can no longer knee-jerk call somebody who makes the connection, 'homophobe'."

and:

"Why are human beings so keen too embrace homosexual men as being ALL good these days?"

and:

"I don't want homosexuality being seen as an evil in itself ever again, but I don't want to be in the position where homosexual men can never be seen as doing no wrong, either. At the moment, I think society is veering towards the latter."

is so offensive I don't know where to start. Funnily enough, I've never asked to be treated as a saint. Being treated as a person, to be judged on my actions rather than who I sleep with, is good enough, and it's something I and my gay allies had to fight for during some really tough times. I've never actually noticed this phenomena of society believing gay people can do no wrong, but I'll be sure to enjoy it when i encounter it. But how would you respond to me, VulvaBeaker and Bluedays, if I told you that Jimmy Saville was making me a bit more sympathetic to those who say heterosexual men are evil bastards?

Good post, Devora.

I think it's amnesty not Liberty who are changing their stance on prostitution.

I'm pretty sure the party politics is not the reason the BBC is staying out of it.

Oh yes, of course! Thanks for the correction, DoS.

I'm sorry if I ranted. It just feels like we worked so hard for a more tolerant, accepting world; it's really beginning to feel like that's paid off. And then suddenly you get these messages not to get too comfortable, that the tolerance is conditional and can be withdrawn at any time.

If people feel the only choice is to think a certain minority group is all wonderful, or all terrible, and that it's ok to proscribe them a collective morality, then they need to take a long hard look at themselves.

I agree Devora. It is homophobic to make a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia which is not the same as saying all gay men are good. Maybe there was a view among allies that no gay man should be criticised because homosexuals were an oppressed group. I wouldn't be surprised, it's still going on with some allies of oppressed groups. I don't think there has ever been a time that society at large has come close to this view though.